DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 5, 2026 has been entered.
Please note: the request for continued examination is to include examination of the claims previously filed on April 6, 2026 as part of Applicant’s response after final action.
Claims under examination comprise claims 1, 6 – 16, 19 – 24, 27, and 28.
Response to Remarks, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their April 6, 2026 response to the February 5, 2026 Final Office Action.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 – 16, and 19 – 26 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any remarks/arguments directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting rejection of Claims 16, and 19 – 24, Applicant remarked that they have “amended the independent claims. Therefore, this rejection is moot.”
The examiner respectfully thanks applicant for amending the independent claims to recite, “wherein an absolute pressure ratio of conditioned air in the nozzle to cabin air is less than 3:1”. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejections of claims 1, 6 – 11, 14 – 16, and 19 - 26 as being unpatentable over Beckman (US 2016/0325841), in view of Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton (US 6,004,204), Applicant remarks that (inter alia) that the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least wherein an absolute pressure ratio of conditioned air in the nozzle to cabin air is less than 3:1… For example, the Office Action has not yet examined the amended subject matter of claim 1, and Applicant submits that none of BECKMAN, WALKINSHAW, LUXTON, and WAGNER disclose the features of amended claim 1. However, Applicant notes that the Office previously relied on column 2, line 31 and column 11, line 66 of LUXTON as allegedly disclosing "wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air in the passenger cabin is: less than 3:1”, "less than 1.5:1," and "has a motive pressure of between 1.001 atmospheric pressure (atm) to 1.070 atm," with reference to previously presented claim 16 and previously canceled claims 17 and 18. See Office Action dated August 2, 2023, pages 9-10. The Office Action did not rely on BECKMAN, WALKINSHAW, and WAGNER as allegedly disclosing these features (see Office Action dated August 2, 2023, pages 9-10), and BECKMAN, WALKINSHAW, and WAGNER do not disclose these features. Even assuming that the Examiner's interpretation of LUXTON is reasonable, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portions** of LUXTON do not disclose the features recited in amended claim 1.
While the examiner regrets any lack of clarity in the mapping** provided in the August 2, 2023 office action, the examiner disagrees with Applicant's remark that "the Office Action has not yet examined the amended subject matter of claim 1, and Applicant submits that none of BECKMAN, WALKINSHAW, LUXTON, and WAGNER disclose the features of amended claim 1".
Claim 16 filed January 10, 2023, October 25, 2023, April 2, 2024, and July 9, 2024 discloses wherein "an absolute pressure ratio is 1.002 or less", and was rejected in office actions dated August 2, 2023, January 31, 2024, April 18, 2024 and October 16, 2024. Applicant is encouraged to review the office actions dated January 31, 2024, April 18, 2024 and October 16, 2024.
Please note that the mapping of col. 2, ln 31 of Luxton was provided to support that the system operates when the aircraft is on the ground (101,325 Pa), and the mapping of col 11, ln 66 was provided to support that pressure upstream from the nozzles operates at Pst = 300Pa (absolute pressure of 101,625 Pa), to support that Luxton discloses wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air in the passenger cabin would be 1.00296. Please note that the same limitation was accurately mapped in Luxton in the Non Final Rejection dated August 2, 2023 (pg 10-11/25); in the Final Rejection dated January 31, 2024 (pg 16-17/37); in the Non Final Rejection dated April 18, 2024 (pg 16-17/20); and in the Final Rejection dated October 16, 2024 (pg 11-12/14)1.
In the Non Final Rejection dated July 3, 2025, the examiner responded to Applicant's argument that Luxton et al allegedly lacked the recited limitation by further including Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951) as evidence that such a technique was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (pg 3-5/20, and pg 12-14/20).
Accordingly, the amended claim limitation (wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the single nozzle to the cabin air in the passenger cabin is less than 3:1) indeed has been examined at least in the first two rounds of prosecution, and has been disclosed by Luxton as evidenced by Walkinshaw.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-11, 13, 14-16, and 19-26 as being unpatentable over BECKMAN (U.S. 2016/0325841) in view of WALKINSHAW (U.S 2009/0311951), LUXTON (U.S. 6,004,204), and WAGNER (DE 102011117091), Applicant remarked (inter alia) -continued - that "Luxton discloses a pressure that is upstream from the nozzles of about 300 Pa, noting that the pressure is the "primary air supply pressure," and not a pressure in the nozzles themselves Luxton does not disclose "wherein an absolute pressure ratio of conditioned air in the nozzle to cabin air is less than 3:1" as recited by claim 1, as amended (emphasis added). For similar reasons, Luxton also does not disclose "the absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air is less than 1.5:1" as recited by claim 27 (emphasis added), and does not disclose "the conditioned air within the nozzle has a motive pressure of between 1.001 atmospheric pressure (atm) to 1.070 atm" as recited by claim 28 (emphasis added).
The examiner respectfully notes the flowing:
It appears that Applicant is focusing on where, within the nozzle, the motive pressure of the conditioned air is determined and/or measured. In order to determine if Luxton's disclosure of wherein the conditioned air pressure "upstream from the nozzles" is different than the claimed pressure "in the nozzle", Applicant's drawings and specification were reviewed.
Applicant has support for "[0006] Known ejector-diffusers (figure 4) are limited by their need for a high-pressure motive fluid and their use of circular converging and diverging sections. Furthermore, known ejector-diffusers may include a pressure ratio of the pressure of the nozzle inlet fluid (motive fluid 411) to the pressure of the discharged mixture of 3:1 or greater." The examiner notes that pressure of the nozzle inlet fluid (fig 4: (411)) would be measured prior to the nozzle (410), and prior to an element that is shaped like a nozzle².
PNG
media_image2.png
267
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In other words, it is possible that:
the nozzle inlet fluid/air [0006, 0032] (absolute) pressure may be different than
the nozzle fluid/ air (absolute) pressure within (in) the nozzle [0008, 0011, 0013, 0021]2.
Accordingly, if the foundation for Applicant’s arguments is based on an absolute pressure in (within) the nozzle, there is support in the disclosure for the absolute pressure (of the motive/inlet fluid) being determined prior to the nozzle, as well as in (within) the nozzle. If the value of an absolute pressure of the conditioned air in the nozzle is relied upon for criticality, and since the pressure ratio is less than 1.5:1.0 (a comparatively low ratio when compared to known ejector-diffusers [0032]), determining where the pressure is measured within the system would have equal criticality.
The examiner respectfully appreciates that the novelty of the instant application is an ejector-diffuser that requires only a low motive pressure of supply air. Based on a motive pressure of 1.001 atm (14.7106 psig), and a differential of 0.001 atm (0.285 psi, or 0.407 in●H2O) between the cabin and the nozzle, it would help to further prosecution if Applicant could please clarify where the motive pressure is being measured.
PNG
media_image3.png
523
910
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner has provided figures 5 and 6 from US 10,562,649 (Gray et al), as they depict the interior of Grey’s Ejection-Diffuser with additional clarity, to help illustrate different areas in/within a nozzle where a pressure may reasonable be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13, 6 – 11, 14, 15, 27, 284, and Claims 16, 19 – 24 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton et al (US 6,004,204), in view of Beckman et al (US 2016/0325841).
In re Claims 1, and 6 – 9, Walkinshaw discloses a passenger cabin air distribution system [0006, 0010, 0021] comprising:
an ejector-diffuser (figs 4, 11A: (42)) having a first end (12), and a second end (46) opposite the first end, the ejector- diffuser comprising:
a primary inlet (30) positioned at the first end;
a nozzle (fig 4: (81, 84)) positioned between the first end and the second end [0114], the nozzle including an opening (apparent) in communication with the primary inlet (30), the nozzle defining an initial chamber (80) adjacent to the first end and a mixing chamber (70)[0118], the mixing chamber (70) being adjacent to the second end ((46), as seen in fig 11A), [0125]
wherein the mixing chamber (70) has a uniform rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to a distal end of the mixing chamber (as seen in fig 11A),
wherein the mixing chamber (70) does not include a plurality of vanes (no vanes are disclosed within the mixing chamber)5;
wherein the discharge port includes a plurality of slots (fig 11A: (46))6,
wherein the plurality of slots further comprise a plurality of arcuate slots (due to curved elements (16))7;
an induction unit [0116] including a secondary inlet (72) for a flow of the cabin air from a passenger cabin (“Ambient air is drawn through the inlet air duct network by the reduced pressure generated within the housing as ambient air is entrained8 within the primary airstream” [0015], “Ambient cabin air is drawn upwardly through the central region 72” [0120]), the secondary inlet (72) in communication with the mixing chamber(70); and
a diffuser section including a discharge port (46), the diffuser section being positioned at the second end [113, 125], the discharge port (46) in communication with the mixing chamber (70); and
an airflow outlet (fig 4) coupled to at least one window vent (fig 4, gaspers adjacent exterior walls, and fig 10B: (20)), wherein the airflow outlet is operable to receive a portion of a flow of the conditioned air and direct the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window vent (20), , wherein the ejector- diffuser connects with the airflow outlet upstream from the at least one window vent (as seen in fig 4).
Walkinshaw lacks:
wherein an absolute pressure ratio of conditioned air in the nozzle to cabin air is less than 3:1, the conditioned air from a ventilation system;
wherein the airflow outlet (fig 4) is coupled to at least one avionics air supply and is further operable to the portion of the conditioned air to an electronics system via the at least one avionics air supply for cooling; and
wherein the ejector- diffuser (42) connects with the airflow outlet (fig 4)upstream from the at least one avionics air supply.
Luxton et al teaches an ejector-diffuser (fig 5: (20)) for a space craft (col 2, ln 49 – 51), or a passenger cabin (col 2, lns 10 – 32), the ejector-diffuser comprising:
a primary inlet (annotated, below) positioned at a first end;
a secondary inlet inducing a flow of a cabin air, due the local reduction in static pressure (col 5, lns 28 – 34),
a single nozzle9 (28) (col 9, lns 17 – 23; “can be used solely”: col 5, lns 63 – 64) positioned between the first end (22) and a second end (23), the nozzle (28) including an opening (outlet (12)), the opening includes a first height and a first width (annotated below; col 6: lns 38 – 39 “linear or elongate slot like nozzle”, lns 45 – 45 “any rectangular cross -sectional area”),
wherein the opening has a first height and a first width, and wherein the first width is greater than the first height (as seen in fig 6)10
PNG
media_image4.png
495
967
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the opening (outlet (12)) in communication with the primary inlet, the nozzle (28) forming an initial chamber adjacent to the first end (22), and
a mixing chamber (annotated, above), wherein the mixing chamber includes a second height, wherein the first height of the opening ((12) “elongate slot-like”) is less than the second height of the mixing chamber11;
wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air is less than 3:1, the conditioned air from a ventilation system; and
wherein the absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air is less than 1.5:112.
wherein the conditioned air within the nozzle has a motive pressure of between 1.001 atmospheric pressure (atm) to 1.070 atm13.
Luxton et al discloses the pressure of the conditioned air upstream from the nozzles is 300 Pa (col 11, ln 66); accordingly, the absolute pressure of the conditioned air is (300 Pa + 101,325 Pa) = 101,625 Pa
Luxton et al discloses “(t)he primary air supply pressure could if desired, be reduced by a further 15 – 20 Pa (col 12, lns 12 - 13); accordingly the absolute pressure of the conditioned air could be 101,605 Pa
Luxton et al discloses the system may operates when the aircraft is on the ground (col 2, ln 31); at sea level, the passenger cabin pressure would be 101,325 Pa
Accordingly, an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air upstream from the nozzle to the cabin air in the passenger cabin could be (101,625/101,325), or less than 3:1 1.0027.
Regarding the disclosure of the pressure measured upstream from the nozzles and not in the nozzle, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any measurement in the nozzle would be downstream of the measured value, and accordingly would be a lower value than 101,605 Pa due to inherent system friction loses.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Walkinshaw as taught by Luxton et al, such that an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air is less than 3:1 (the conditioned air from a ventilation system), the lowered pressure resulting in an exit velocity of air leaving the ejection-diffuser that can be kept low, so avoiding creation of secondary noise such as rattling a vane in the discharge (col 7, lns 38 – 43).
Beckman et al teaches a passenger cabin air distribution ventilation system (fig 2: (232)) comprising:
a diffuser (fig 2: (240a)) having a first end, and a second end opposite the first end (apparent), the diffuser comprising:
a primary inlet (proximal duct (233)) positioned at the first end; and
a diffuser section (“overhead outlet”) including a discharge port [0028]. the diffuser section being positioned at the second end (proximal cabin (102)), and
an airflow outlet (240a) coupled to at least one window vent (glareshield outlet)** and to at least one avionics14 air supply*** operable to receive a portion of a flow of the conditioned air (A2) from the ventilation system (232) and direct the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window vent (glareshield outlet),
** conditioned air from a ventilation system “may be ducted to cockpit glareshield outlets and to overhead outlets” [0028] has been understood to disclose an outlet coupled to a window vent.
*** “some embodiments may include a cooling manifold for each equipment rack” [0019]. Regarding “Avionics”, see [0024, 0089];
wherein the airflow outlet is further operable to the portion of the conditioned air to an avionics electronics system (fig 2: (245, 274, 276, 282, 286)) via the at least one avionics air supply (240b, c, d) for cooling [0045], wherein the diffuser (“overhead outlet”) connects with the airflow outlet (240a) upstream**** from the electronics system (as seen in fig 2);
**** “This thermal management approach may provide cooling air to pilots and operators first” [0019]
wherein the airflow outlet includes a branch to provide the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window (glareshield) vent, and wherein the branch is upstream from the at least one avionics air supply [0019]15;
such that “cooling air (is provided) to pilots and operators first, and then …that cooling air (is utilized) to cool the equipment [0019], wherein the system can be reconfigured if the demands on the electronics systems change [0020. 0031].
PNG
media_image5.png
456
733
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system, as taught by Beckman et al, such that the system comprises an airflow outlet coupled to at least one window vent and to at least one avionics air supply, wherein the airflow outlet is operable to receive a portion of a flow of the conditioned air and direct the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window vent, wherein the airflow outlet is further operable to the portion of the conditioned air to an electronics system via the at least one avionics air supply for cooling, wherein the ejector- diffuser connects with the airflow outlet upstream from the at least one window vent and the at least one avionics air supply, for the benefit of fulfilling increased cooling requirements for heat-generating electrical equipment components [0021] (such as computers) thereby eliminating reliance on passive convection and conduction into a surrounding environment [0019] and uncomfortable hot spots [0020] .
Claim 2 – 5 have been cancelled by Applicant
In re Claim 10, the proposed system has been discussed, (see above In re Claim 1), wherein the (nozzle16) opening (12) has a first height (“elongate slot-like”), wherein the mixing chamber has a second height (annotated above), and wherein the first height of the opening is less than the second height of the mixing chamber.
In re Claims 11, see above, In re Claim 1, wherein the proposed passenger cabin air distribution system comprises:
an ejector-diffuser having a discharge port;
a ventilation system operable to provide conditioned air to the ejector-diffuser through a primary inlet;
an induction unit comprising a secondary inlet and a single nozzle with an opening, wherein the opening causes a local reduction in static pressure of a flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system flowing through the opening, and wherein the local reduction in static pressure causes an induced flow of a cabin air to flow through the secondary inlet;
a mixing chamber positioned to mix conditioned air flowing though the opening with the induced flow before being ejected from the discharge port into a passenger cabin,
wherein the mixing chamber has a uniform rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to an end of the mixing chamber, and
wherein an absolute pressure ratio of conditioned air in the single nozzle to the cabin air is less than 3:1, the conditioned air from a ventilation system;
a duct (an airflow outlet) operable to receive a portion of the flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system and direct the portion of the conditioned air to a window vent and to an electronics system.
In re Claim 14, see above In re Claim 6, wherein the mixing chamber does not include a plurality of vanes.
In re Claims 15, see above, In re Claim 1, wherein the passenger cabin is within a spacecraft and the electronics system is an avionics system.
In re Claim 27, see above , In re Claim 1, wherein the absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air is less than 1.5:1.
In re Claim 28, see above , In re Claim 1, wherein the conditioned air within the nozzle has a motive pressure of between 1.001 atmospheric pressure (atm) to 1.070 atm.
Regarding to claims 16, and 19 – 24, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claims 1617, and 19 – 24, the proposed system discussed above discloses a method of distributing air in a passenger cabin, the method comprising:
providing conditioned air from a ventilation system, a flow of the conditioned air is provided to an ejector-diffuser, the ejector-diffuser having a single nozzle with an opening (claim 1);
locally reducing a static pressure within a high-velocity region of the ejector-diffuser by directing the flow of the conditioned air through the opening, wherein locally reducing the static pressure induces a flow of a cabin air from the passenger cabin through a secondary inlet in the ejector-diffuser (claim 1);
mixing, in a mixing chamber, the flow of the conditioned air and the flow of the cabin air into a mixed air, wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the single nozzle to cabin air is less than 3:1 (claim 1);
ejecting the mixed air into the passenger cabin (claim 1);
providing a portion of the flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system to an airflow outlet, the airflow outlet directing the portion of the conditioned air to a window vent and to an electronics system, wherein the ejector-diffuser is upstream from the window vent and from the electronics system along the flow of conditioned air (claim 1);
wherein the mixing chamber that does not include a plurality of vanes (claim 6)18.
wherein the portion of the conditioned air is directed to the window vent through a branch positioned upstream from the electronics system (claim 1)19.
wherein the mixing chamber includes a rectangular cross-section in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber (claim 1)20.
wherein the mixing chamber includes a uniform rectangular cross-section in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber (claim 1)21.
wherein the opening has a first height and a first width, and wherein the first width is greater than the first height (see in re Claim 1 above)22.
wherein the mixing chamber has a second height that is greater than the first height (claim 10)23.
Claims 25 and 26 have been cancelled by Applicant
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton et al (US 6,004,204), in view of Beckman et al (US 2016/0325841), and further in view of Scherer et al (US 6,024,639).
In re Claims 12 and 13, the proposed has been discussed (In re Claim 11, above), but lacks:
wherein a sensor is positioned within a flow path of the induced flow of the cabin air;
wherein the sensor is a smoke detector.
Scherer et al teaches an injector air outlet comprising a sensor (12) positioned within a flow path of the induced flow of the cabin air, wherein the sensor is a smoke detector (fig 1: (12B) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed system, as taught by Scherer et al, such that a sensor (a smoke detector) is positioned within a flow path of the induced flow of the cabin air, for the benefit of providing improvements in the safety of the passengers and crew of the aircraft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
The prior art made of record, not relied upon, and yet is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure includes Wagner (DE 102011117091), who discloses an ejector-diffuser (figs 1 – 4: (1)) comprising:
a primary inlet (Vprim) [0030];
“The air distribution box is fed 23 with primary air, which is preferably processed in an air center of the building and a distribution network the induction device 1 is supplied.”
an induction unit (22) comprising a secondary inlet (Vsek) and a nozzle (24) with an opening (apparent);
a mixing chamber (27) positioned to mix conditioned air flowing though the opening with the induced flow before being ejected into an occupied space (“from this into the room to be ventilated or air conditioned”) [0016],
wherein the mixing chamber (27) has a uniform rectangular cross-section (as seen in the figures), in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber [0030], extending from the opening to an end of the mixing chamber, the cross-section comprising a width (25/26) of the mixing chamber that extends the longitudinal extent of the air discharge duct (21) [0030]
wherein the (nozzle) opening has a width that is a percentage of the width (25, 26) of the mixing chamber [0009, 0012],
PNG
media_image6.png
453
1129
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the mixing chamber width is adjustable [0032], via actuating element (11) [0034], in order to control a ratio of secondary air to primary air, to provide a pleasant climate [0039] particularly in an occupied zone where a relatively greater amount of primary air is desired [0005].
The prior art made of record, not relied upon, and yet is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes Gray et al (US 10,562,649), who discloses an ejector diffuser comprising an inlet vent, a mixing section configured for mixing the air and the additional air, and an exit diffuser. In some embodiments, the mixing section includes one or more vanes for mixing the air and the additional air. The mixing section vanes assist with mixing the air; Then, the air passes through the diffuser 530 and into a crew cabin.
PNG
media_image7.png
280
303
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Further, Carrier Engineering company limited (GB 530,178) discloses:
a diffuser having a discharge port (18);
conditioned air provided to the diffuser through a primary inlet (14);
an induction unit (22) comprising a secondary inlet (17) and a nozzle (2) with an opening (as seen in the figures), wherein the opening causes a local reduction in static pressure of a flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system flowing through the opening, and wherein the local reduction in static pressure causes an induced flow of a room air to flow through the secondary inlet;
a mixing chamber (23) positioned to mix conditioned air flowing though the opening with the induced flow before being ejected from the discharge port into a room;
PNG
media_image8.png
788
443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the mixing chamber has a rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to an end of the mixing chamber, and
wherein the (nozzle) opening has a width that is less than a width of the mixing chamber (as seen above in figures 2, 3)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on M – F; 9 – 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.270.6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 The claims filed claims filed February 12, 2025 and May 2, 2025 were amended to disclose an absolute pressure ratio of 1.002:1.0 or less; all claims drawn to an absolute pressure ratio were deleted from the claims filed with the April 6, 2026 Response After Final Action.
2 The nozzle fluid/ air (absolute) pressure within (in) the nozzle [0008, 0011, 0013, 0021] is approximately 1.002 atm
3 Claims 2 – 5, 17 and 18 have been cancelled by Applicant.
4 The claims have been in order of dependency, not numerical order.
5 Claim 6
6 Claim 7
7 Claim 8
8 entrained, induced,
9 Claims 11, 16
10 Claim 23, discussed below
11 Claim 10
12 Claim 27
13 Claim 28
14 Avionics (n): electronics designed for use in aerospace vehicles. incorporated; Aerospace (n): space comprising the earth’s atmosphere and the space beyond. © 2026 Merriam-Webster,
15 Claim 9
16 Please note that the “opening” in claim 10 is the nozzle opening disclosed in claim 1
17 Claim 17 and 18 have been cancelled by Applicant
18 Claim 19
19 Claim 20
20 Claim 21
21 Claim 22
22 Claim 23
23 Claim 24
Prosecution Insights